Interestingly, our third hypothesis was unsupported. We proposed that the framing effect would be more pronounced in high-payoff scenarios as opposed to low-payoff scenarios. This would have been shown with an interaction between frame-type (gain versus loss) and payoff type (high versus low) with a larger discrepancy of sure-option responding between gain-framed and loss-framed scenarios in high-payoff scenarios. This was not the case; while there was an interaction, the discrepancy was actually much larger in the low-payoff scenarios and not at all significant in the high-payoff scenarios. This evidence is contradictory to previous findings. Kuhberger, et al. (2002) http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/sports/ that the framing effect was larger in scenarios offering a high payoff and proposed that the results were simply due to the magnitude of the consequences involved. (For example, both choices for a low-payoff situation seem equally small while in a high-payoff situation, the choices seem to offer distinctly different outcomes). Our data, however, did not follow this trend. Perhaps the subjects focused more intently on the high-payoff scenarios and were thus less susceptible to their frames than the general content of the scenarios themselves. Low-payoff scenarios, on the other hand, inherently offered consequences of less importance. Subjects may therefore have been less concerned with the actual content of the scenario and more susceptible to its frame.